Today, the Supreme Court granted Wheaton College an injunction pending appeal against enforcement of the contraception mandate, even though Wheaton was eligible for the accommodation HHS has provided for religious non-profits. Specifically the Court ordered:

If the applicant informs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a non-profit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, the respondents are enjoined from enforcing against the applicant the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of appellate review. To meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, the applicant need not use the form prescribed by the Government, EBSA Form 700, and need not send copies to health insurance issuers or third-party administrators.

The only thing the Wheaton College injunction says is that an exempt employer MAY not be required to file a certain form with the US government. Until the issue (is a certain form required) is resolved, the government should consider themselves notified and take whatever action they deem appropriate.

It does not impact the employer mandate or birth control in any way - regardless of the mass hysteria among the Uterus Uber Alles crowd on the Supreme Court!

I have always held that there is no way whatsoever that birth control can be justified as a health insurance matter.

Instead of fixing something that doesnt work, it either breaks something that works or prevents something that works, from working.

I have never received an intelligent rebuttal or even a coherent reply from a leftist on this matter.

As a strong conservative, I am going to give you a coherent reply. Most birth control has been traditionally treated as a medical care issue for nearly a century. Politicians, the medical care industry, and the general populace has gone along with this for longer than I have been alive, which approaches 7 decades. There is really no such thing as Health Insurance -- no one but God can guarantee your health. A policy may say "Health Insurance" on the top of the page, and politicians, medical professionals, the media and the general public may call it that, but if you think about this for a while you will see that it does not insure that you will be healthy any more than "Life Insurance" insures that you will live.

It is Medical Care Insurance which guarantees to pay for medical treatment. Just as Life Insurance pays your beneficiary when you die. There are many types of medical treatment which are not necessary to continue living, but which produce results that are desired by the patient. Would you deny cosmetic surgery to those born with disfiguring birth defects? How about those with traumatic injury?

As I age, I find I need the modern antacid drugs. I have never heard of anyone dying of heartburn, but are you going to argue that these drugs should not be covered by medical insurance?

* * * * * *

Be careful what you ask for. One of the potential responses to the medical care coverage issue, is to make birth control over-the-counter. This would remove it from the policies, which only cover prescription medication, but, it would be even more widely available. I am not certain this is a bad idea, although you might find it less appealing.

To them, “broke” means anything that doesn’t work the way *I* want it to work. Post-modernism means that people can make up whatever “truth” they want, and I think they figure that the real world should work just like the imaginary thought games work for them. If I believe that a Mack truck running me over won’t kill me, then by golly that’s how the world is supposed to work.

It’s idolatry - putting oneself in the place of God. Who does God think He is, to say how the reproductive system is “supposed” to work? Or to say how marriage is “supposed” to work? Etc. That’s the mentality. If it works how God intended but not how *I* intended, then it’s broken because it is the “Almighty Me” whose will is everything.

The whole point of “Planned Parenthood” is that our lives should always go just how WE want it to be. Children should live according to *MY* terms. They should be when and where I want, the gender I want, the intelligence level I want, the eye-color I want.... etc.

Basically, it’s the mentality of a 2-year-old who, when he can’t get his parents to agree to what he wants, throws a tantrum and/or takes what he wants anyway.

What they may never realize is that God’s way is for our good. He knows how everything fits together and knows the ultimate consequences for trying to switch this “one little thing” around. But humans want to believe they know best - more than the One who can see the end from the beginning. We don’t know the world of hurt we may be inviting by messing with “this one little thing”, but He does.

The matter of whether “health insurance” will absolutely fix you up in the same way that “car insurance” will absolutely fix your car up, or get you a new one, is far beyond the scope of how it applies to birth control. It would be a good chat over curly fries and beer at happy hour though, and I will keep it in mind.

Yes the matter of birth control is a medical matter but I say that it is not a medical *insurance* matter. If pregnancy is to be considered a disease, it is by any measure the most preventable “disease” mankind has ever “suffered”. Only forcible rape comes to mind as an exception.

But re “Would you deny cosmetic surgery to those born with disfiguring birth defects? How about those with traumatic injury?”, no and no. My earlier definition could not be simpler, and has no implication whatsoever that there is a distinction to be made for life-threatening injuries or diseases vs those that are not. A traumatic injury is the very reason for health insurance or medical insurance or whatever we would agree to call it. And the “cosmetic surgery” of your example is well within my quick definition of “fixing something that doesn’t work” and can easily be defined and defended as something very different from a Hollywood nose job.

If I may expand on that point just a little, I see no slippery slope or hazy line here if we extend it to medical treatment in general. We can all agree that a broken leg in a car accident is the kind of thing health insurance is for, and at the same time agree that some kind of surgery or new science fiction genetic procedure to make our middle-aged legs as quick and as strong as our early-20’s legs were is not.

Your antacid question is another easy call for me: that’s fixing something that doesn’t work. Now as to whether an insurance company should pay for Tums, for for the latest, best prescription, for surgery, I say that’s for them to decide to include in a policy they offer — not for the government to mandate — and for you to buy or not buy that policy.

Good points. As I just wrote in another post, it should be up to the insurance company — as it had been for quite some time — to decide whether to offer “coverage” for aspirin, antacids, dandruff shampoo, etc. They don’t, because it’s stupid, for the same economic reasons that no car insurance company has a policy that “covers” oil changes or offers a three-dollar deductible.

Hear hear. Code words and phrases for “abortion” are the favorite euphemisms in all of Leftist Thought — “women’s health”, “reproductive choice”, etc. I can’t think of any other “right” for which its advocates dare not speak its name.

Yes if I said that on tv they would cry bloody murder and say how dare I say they are not Christian, but nevertheless it is true that and woman that supports abortion in any way shape or form, does not have the Spirit of Christ within them

Yes if I said that on tv they would cry bloody murder and say how dare I say they are not Christian, but nevertheless it is true that and woman that supports abortion in any way shape or form, does not have the Spirit of Christ within them

I think there is one bridging phrase to the Declaration of Independence that is in the Constitution, which can be seen as a link to "unalienable rights."

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note the use of the phrase "Blessings of Liberty." They didn't say "liberty," they said "blessings of liberty." They also capitalized Blessings and Liberty. Why?

In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note the use of capitalization for Life, Liberty, and Happiness. This is common when writing about gifts from God. Also note that these refer to the rights endowed by the Creator, which would be blessings. By this language, is it possible that Founders meant the Constitution to establish a government that secured the blessing of the unalienable right to Liberty?

Therefore, when they spoke of "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity," wouldn't those referred to as "our posterity" be the unborn children who were also "blessed" with the right to Liberty, and the other unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence?

How can the Founders believe that they were securing Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness for our unborn future if they were also writing abortion into the Constitution?

-PJ

21
posted on 07/06/2014 11:57:26 AM PDT
by Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)

“SCOTUS enjoined enforcement of the birth control mandate pending outcome of Wheatons appeal.”

Wheaton College is not controlled by the employer mandate. They are already largely exempt. This case is about what sort of forms the government can require, and what process, to document that one is a religious non-profit.

There may or may not someday be a court decision saying that a religious non-profit doesn’t have to submit X form, but even if so, that would hardly be some major blow for freedom. It would only apply to employers who are already exempt.

The matter of whether health insurance will absolutely fix you up in the same way that car insurance will absolutely fix your car up, or get you a new one, is far beyond the scope of how it applies to birth control. It would be a good chat over curly fries and beer at happy hour though, and I will keep it in mind.

You are not following what "insurance" does in these cases. Car insurance will not absolutely fix up your car. It will only pay up to the policy limit for a mechanic or body shop to work on your car to fix it to the best of their ability within the financial constraints of the policy. Rare indeed is the policy which will pay for a new car if your old one is older. The only thing any car insurance can do is pay you money for the damage to your car. There are special circumstances where if your car is new enough theory will pay for a replacement new one, but they never give you the car -- they write a check and send it to you.

For medical care insurance, there is no guarantee they will fix what is wrong with you, all they promise is to pay up to the policy limit the medical bills you have for treatment which is very much different than a "complete cure". Yes the matter of birth control is a medical matter but I say that it is not a medical *insurance* matter. If pregnancy is to be considered a disease, it is by any measure the most preventable disease mankind has ever suffered.

Again, you are not seeing what insurance does. Both pregnancy and birth control require medical treatments, although this does not mean that pregnancy is any kind of a disease. Long ago, mankind discovered that the outcome of a pregnancy was frequently better if there were medical care during the progress of the pregnancy. Especially during birth, where medical intervention frequently saves the life of both mothers and children.

All insurance does is pay for this care. The concept of pregnancy being treated as a disease, is a red herring. Every woman knows this and when we make that claim we lose support, and their votes. Every woman I know would much rather give birth in a hospital than somewhere else. I have read about some who would rather do it at home or in a non-hospital setting, but all of them want an ambulance on call, a hospital somewhere nearby, and a midwife right there with them.

At least you recognize that birth control is medical treatment. Medical treatment does not always have to fix something wrong, but it always has to be paid for.

Notice I didn't say "abortion" anywhere in there. That is where I draw the line.

Anywhere else leaves us open to the charges of being conservative cave men. As much as I might not like the entire package, I would far rather give in on non-abortion birth control and let women hear about the values of other conservative positions, than have their minds closed before we even start a conversation on areas like school vouchers, safe housing, lower taxes, government overspending, and all the other things where we have positions and a message that most women are receptive to.

I think the toughest challenge the employer mandate faces is the idea that birth control pills are a right AND a compelling state need. Generic birth control pills run under $10/month, and many counties will provide them for free (along with free IUDs) for those who cannot afford them.

** the Supreme Court granted Wheaton College an injunction pending appeal against enforcement of the contraception mandate, even though Wheaton was eligible for the accommodation HHS has provided for religious non-profits.**

Is there any language, anywhere, in either the PPACA (Obamacare) law, or federal regulations implementing it, that requires insurers to cover Viagra? Some insurers may choose to cover it, but are all insurers required to? I don't think so.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.